Which translation are you using ? — Amity

Bloom.

[numbers added. 1)] To put it differently, how does this three-fold division, cave, light of sun, Forms, correspond to the two-fold division of visible and intelligible? [2)] Are the Forms themselves more than images or are they shadows in the mind cast by Plato the image maker? [3)] Does the image of escape from the cave to a light above the light of the sun bind us more firmly to the cave?
— Fooloso4

I have no idea. Hadn't even thought of it in these terms.
Good questions. What and where are the answers, if any ? — Amity

1) Both the cave and terrestrial life are within the visible realm, but according to the analogy, the cave would be the visible and the terrestrial intelligible. One problem is, how intelligible is the intelligible realm? Can there be any knowledge in the absence of sensibles?

2) The Forms are hypotheticals. Images presented by Plato, cleverly presented as if one has been initiated into the mysteries of the truth.

3) The inability to identify images as images is what the lack of education of the prisoners is all about. Education is not about hearing some story about a world outside the cave that the select have seen. Believing it is the truth itself is to mistake the image for the truth. But the truth is, they may insist that there are Forms, but they have no knowledge of Forms. Rather than being drawn closer to the truth their imagination takes them further away.

all three guitars are made by Burns. — Fooloso4

Good call. Doubtless miming for the publicity shot.

No doubt.

Nice Vox amps on stage but the guitars are not plugged in.

Nice Vox amps on stage but the guitars are not plugged in. — Fooloso4

The rhythm is acoustic, and not a n acoustic in sight.

...love all the funky white-guy steps, and especially now 'Hank'(!?) Marvin pushes his glasses back up his nose just before a riff.

Marvin pushes his glasses — Banno

I saw that!!! Wouldn’t catch Buddy Holly doing that, betcha.

It’s phrased in such a way as to leave it an open question.
— Wayfarer

One that only the dead can answer — Fooloso4

Yes, and philosophy is 'practicing for death'.

Looking away from Plato to a later tradition is, in my opinion, to avoid Plato. — Fooloso4

It's not avoidance. After Plato's death, his philosophy was the source of inspiration for generations of philosophers; Western philosophy is after all 'footnotes to Plato'.

Yes, and philosophy is 'practicing for death'. — Wayfarer

What does this mean? How does one practice dying and being dead? If you have never been dead how do you know you are practicing it in the right way?

It's not avoidance. After Plato's death, his philosophy was the source of inspiration for generations of philosophers — Wayfarer

There is a difference between the attempt to understand what an author said and looking at how others might have been inspired by what he said. It is not that it is without value to look at how others were inspired but being inspired does not mean or require that one has understood an author.

How does one practice dying and being dead? If you have never been dead how do you know you are practicing it in the right way? — Fooloso4

I'm not claiming to have any first-hand knowledge of that, but isn't that what 'mortification' originally referred to? 'To mortify' is to 'make dead'. And the meaning of 'anamnesis' is recalling what the soul knew prior to this life. These are associated with asceticism and specifically, in the context, with Orphic asceticism.

The Orphics were an ascetic sect; wine, to them, was only a symbol, as, later, in the Christian sacrament. The intoxication that they sought was that of "enthusiasm," of union with the God. They believed themselves, in this way, to acquire mystic knowledge not obtainable by ordinary means. This mystical element entered into Greek philosophy with Pythagoras, who was a reformer of Orphism as Orpheus was a reformer of the religion of Dionysus. From Pythagoras Orphic elements entered into the philosophy of Plato, and from Plato into most later philosophy that was in any degree religious. — Bertrand Russell, HWP, p 37

There is a difference between the attempt to understand what an author said and looking at how others might have been inspired by what he said. — Fooloso4

Plato's ideas were developed in various ways by following generations. The reason I quoted the passage from Thomistic psychology is because I think it presents a form of dualism that is plausible from a contemporary viewpoint, and compatible with Platonism, even given all that has subsequently been discovered by science.

Can there be any knowledge in the absence of sensibles? — Fooloso4

I'm confused now - why would there be no 'sensibles' - whatever you mean by that ?

The Forms are hypotheticals. Images presented by Plato, cleverly presented as if one has been initiated into the mysteries of the truth. — Fooloso4

Understood. But shouldn't that be a bit grander: 'The Mysteries of the Truth' ?

Believing it is the truth itself is to mistake the image for the truth. But the truth is, they may insist that there are Forms, but they have no knowledge of Forms. Rather than being drawn closer to the truth their imagination takes them further away. — Fooloso4

Gotcha.
But many still argue the point. Endlessly.

Perhaps this is the concern of @Shawn

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

@Shawn - come back ! That is, if you have any real interest in the thread you started...

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? — Shawn

A great question!

The step of realizing the shadows on the wall and echoes of voices aren't real but merely representations is but the start of the philosphical journey Plato speaks of.

What comes after is perhaps more profound, but also, as Plato keeps emphasizing, a terribly painful and arduous journey. Painful in a spiritual or intellectual sense, I imagine. Having to build one's idea of reality back from scratch, having to cut away all those ideas that as a result of one's insights are now seen to be mere opinions or based on ignorance. For example, what does it do to one's identity and idea of self?

I fear the sad truth might be that only certain types of minds can make this journey. The types of minds dedicated to finding truth, ones that are not attached to their ideas and will dispose of them without remorse upon finding that they are not truthful.

For many are confronted with the faultiness of their ideas but cling onto them because of a sense of attachment, likely because these opinions are an integral part of what they perceive as their identity and makes up their ego (that eternal enemy of happiness and truth).

In my eyes, philosophy isn't complicated or hard to understand. It is about applying simple ideas consistently. It is the consistency that most people seem to struggle with, because it must then also be applied in instances where we may not like the implications.

The sad conclusion of Plato's allegory is that upon the philosopher's return to the cave, the prisoners assume he went crazy and do not take him seriously. The prisoners either cannot see, or do not want to see. Most people don't react positively to their idea of reality being rattled. They'd rather live in the comfort of their own illusions than to confront them. That is why.

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

My sympathy is always with the folk in the cave. Why would you leave when things are predictable and familiar? There is no great psychological benefit to be found in disruptions and upheavals. Further, most of us are not looking for truth or deliverance, we are looking for safety.

Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? Why is philosophy still associated with no inherent value, or even more practically, valued so little? — Shawn

I think what Plato is saying is that not everyone can unshackle and free themselves. Plato's philosophers are an intellectual elite with special abilities and training and capable of seeing a higher truth. As such, the philosophers are mankind’s link to a higher reality.

There seems to have been an age-old tradition in which priests, shamans, and wise men and women spent a period of time (usually years) exploring, discovering, and learning new or special knowledge that they later imparted to their communities.

Similarly, the task of Plato's philosophers is to distance themselves from everyday life in order to see things in a different light (the light of the Good) after which they return to society to enlighten their fellow citizens.

In Christian times, a comparative role was performed by monks, hermits, and holy men. Obviously, not all attained the same degree of enlightenment, but as in the case of Plato’s philosophers, they had some kind of cognitive contact with the “light (or Form) of the Good”, i.e., they somehow “saw the light” and were able to impart some of it to others.

With the rise of materialism, people in general became perhaps less receptive to guidance from such individuals and this has led to loss of interest in the practical application of philosophy and to its reinterpretation as a purely intellectual endeavor.

I'm confused now - why would there be no 'sensibles' - whatever you mean by that ? — Amity

In the intelligible realm there are no sensibles, only objects of the mind.

But shouldn't that be a bit grander: 'The Mysteries of the Truth' ? — Amity

To draw someone to philosophy he dangles the mysteries, the promise of the truth revealed. But the truth is, the Forms are hypothetical. The result is that there are two different kinds of readers of the dialogues. Those who image something grander, something higher, something transcendent, and those who, like Socrates himself, are grounded by self-knowledge, which includes the awareness that we know nothing of transcendent truths.

Gotcha.
But many still argue the point. Endlessly. — Amity

It is a matter of desire. We desire wisdom. In the Apology Socrates distinguishes between human and divine wisdom. His wisdom is human wisdom, but some confuse the desire for divine wisdom with the possession of divine wisdom. They fail to realize that they do not even possess human wisdom. They are chasing dreams and think such dreams are a higher reality.

isn't that what 'mortification' originally referred to? — Wayfarer

Do you mean Christian mortification? That imports a lot of stuff not found in Plato.

And the meaning of 'anamnesis' is recalling what the soul knew prior to this life. — Wayfarer

And what do you recall?

These are associated with asceticism and specifically, in the context, with Orphic asceticism. — Wayfarer

Socrates was not an ascetic. In the background of the same dialogue is the fact that at age seventy he has two young sons.

I think it presents a form of dualism that is plausible from a contemporary viewpoint, and compatible with Platonism — Wayfarer

The question is whether Plato is compatible with Platonism. The only way to determine that is to first attempt to read Plato without being under the shadow of later works. But you seem to think that these are not shadows but illuminations. I don't think we will be able to reconcile this difference.

The question is whether Plato is compatible with Platonism. The only way to determine that is to first attempt to read Plato without being under the shadow of later works. — Fooloso4

:up:

The religion that worships its chains! There is a persistent illusion that distorts my view of the world, that my pain and pleasure is more significant than yours, and my life more important than yours. The combination of this myopia and short arms means that I tend to myself and let you tend to to yourself most of the time. But when there is nothing beyond self, we cannot even communicate, let alone cooperate. Have some more tea. — unenlightened

:flower: :100:

"We were talking
about the space
between us
all"

"We were talking
about the love
we all could share"

"And to see you're really only very small
And life flows on
within you and
without you"

"They don't know
They can't see
Are you one of them?"

"When you've seen beyond yourself
then you may find
Peace of mind
is waiting there"

Isn't it the case that in the later tradition of Aristotelian philosophy that nous apprehends the forms, and the senses apprehend the body? That all particulars are a compound of form (morphe) and matter (hyle)? — Wayfarer

Correct. According to Socrates, particulars exist by virtue of their participating in the Forms. This is why Socrates urges us time and again to go beyond our sense-perceptions and use our reasoning and intuitive faculties to get to the truth.

This is what sets the true philosopher apart from the nonphilosophical crowds.

The properties seen in the particulars, the sun’s reflections seen in water, the shadows reflected on the wall, all draw the philosopher’s attention to the existence of realities beyond and above the objects of ordinary perception and everyday experience. Thus he proceeds to the unknown by means of the known and to the new by means of the old.

In contrast, the anti-Platonists (and anti-philosophers) are the ones who refuse to contemplate anything beyond everyday experience. They are the ones who are supremely content with their chained condition, who refuse to see the light or even conceive its existence.

In their opinion, the world of shadows reflecting images of beings in the outside world is all there is, and nothing else can ever exist.

The result is that there are two different kinds of readers of the dialogues. Those who image something grander, something higher, something transcendent, and those who, like Socrates himself, are grounded by self-knowledge, which includes the awareness that we know nothing of transcendent truths. — Fooloso4

Yes. I've noticed. The eternal magic roundabout. I blame Plato. He got what he wanted.
Philosophy will never end...with more than two involved in any interpretation...

In the intelligible realm there are no sensibles, only objects of the mind. — Fooloso4

Meant to say thanks for clarification. Most helpful. But as usual other questions arise. What are the 'objects of the mind' ?
Sounds like abstract mental concepts.
However, the 'sensible' from the other ( physical ) realm can still reach/affect them, no ? The body and the mind are inter-related. It's a 2-way process.
Ideas arise from imagination, a mental faculty for which we need the brain...
Humans are the creators.

The eternal magic roundabout. I blame Plato. He got what he wanted. — Amity

I too think he got what he wanted. He knows that there are those who desire the mystical but are not content with the indeterminate. They want the mystery to be solved, the truth to be revealed, answers to be found. He gives them what they want in the way he wants. A theology he thinks preferable to what they might latch onto elsewhere. A theology of the beautiful/noble, just, and good.

He also knows that there are some who are not satisfied with myths or stories, however edifying. They prefer the truth that they do not know to the illusion of knowledge. They inquire and do not mistake stories of Forms for knowledge of Forms or even knowledge of the existence of Forms, and do not allow the promise of the knowledge of Forms occlude the fact that the Forms are for Plato hypotheticals. That one can leap from the hypothetical to noesis is not something they deny but not something they accept either.

What are the 'objects of the mind' ? — Amity

They are not objects of the mind in the sense of being products of the mind, but of being known by the mind. They include at the lower level of the divide line mathematical objects and at thehigher level the Forms. But since the Forms are hypotheticals, they are products of the mind. Further they are products of the imagination. The divided line turns out to be not so neatly divided.

[Edit : The way the Forms are presented, as existing independent of but known by the mind, is problematic since they are also said to be hypotheticals. Once again we see here that we cannot simply take things at face value but must follow the argument if we are not content with blindly affirming what we have no knowledge of. We also see one way in which Plato is addressing two different types of readers. On the one hand he says that there are independent Forms, but on the other he indicates that things are not quite so simple. We are left to ask about the origin of the Forms. We are also compelled to consider in what way things would be able to "participate" in the Form. Socrates raises the question in the "Second Sailing" section of the Phaedo:

I simply, naively and perhaps foolishly cling to this, that nothing else makes it beautiful other than the presence of, or the sharing in, or however you may describe its relationship to that Beautiful we mentioned, for I will not insist on the precise nature of the relationship, but that all beautiful things are beautiful by the Beautiful. That, I think, is the safest answer I can give myself or anyone else.” (100e)

He raises the question of the relationship between things and Forms, but does not insist on the precise nature of that relationship. Why? It he had a coherent argument why wouldn't he present it here or elsewhere? He calls the hypothesis of Forms (100a) simple, naive, and perhaps foolish, and later "safe and ignorant". (105 b)

Now some will try to defend the idea of transcendent Forms with accusations of bias against those who question it, but in that case it would seem that Plato is biased against Plato.]

Sounds like abstract mental concepts. — Amity

They are said to exist independently. But Socrates, who presents these ideas, denies having any knowledge of them. They are part of Plato's philosophical poetry.

The body and the mind are inter-related. It's a 2-way process. — Amity

In some places Socrates talks as if they are independent, but in others he acknowledges that they are not.

Humans are the creators. — Amity

To use the Greek terminology in translations, the poets or makers.

Most people don't react positively to their idea of reality being rattled. They'd rather live in the comfort of their own illusions than to confront them. That is why. — Tzeentch

I see. I have experienced something similar to this idea of the truth that one holds can be subject to scrutiny and be challenged. It's tiresome offer a while but is the bread and butter of philosophy.

My sympathy is always with the folk in the cave. Why would you leave when things are predictable and familiar? There is no great psychological benefit to be found in disruptions and upheavals. Further, most of us are not looking for truth or deliverance, we are looking for safety. — Tom Storm

Yes... It is an issue to think that philosophy can hold any safety in challenging questions and truths. People do value safety in higher regard.

Also, I don't think philosophy asks for disruptions and upheavals. It's just the task of the philosopher to question.

Similarly, the task of Plato's philosophers is to distance themselves from everyday life in order to see things in a different light (the light of the Good) after which they return to society to enlighten their fellow citizens. — Apollodorus

This raises an interesting question as to whether a philosopher or philosophers have any duty towards their fellow citizens. What do you think?

This raises an interesting question as to whether a philosopher or philosophers have any duty towards their fellow citizens. What do you think? — Shawn

I think there can be absolutely no doubt about it. Both in general and in a Platonic context. Plato's philosophers, after all, were to be trained for the express purpose of serving the people.

And the meaning of 'anamnesis' is recalling what the soul knew prior to this life. These are associated with asceticism and specifically, in the context, with Orphic asceticism. — Wayfarer

Plato's connections with Orphism are essential in the correct reading of his writings.

I have noticed that when anti-Platonists fail to understand something they invariably resort to the rather risible claim that Plato (or Socrates) is being “ironic”.

But what is really funny is that they go so far as to deny the text of the dialogue itself and to conveniently forget that Plato’s cave has an entrance open to outside light, and that there is a whole new world out there illumined by the sun! :grin:

In reality, the attentive reader cannot fail to see that the allegory only makes sense if there is a world outside the cave and the possibility of those inside to visit the outside world.

The philosopher who ventures outside the cave is not an ordinary philosopher but one who has seen the light. The symbolism of light is very important in Socrates (and Plato). Socrates compares the light of truth to the light of the Sun and later relates the vision of a column of light (616b).

Further, he also speaks of a guide that leads the soul to that vision of light, and of the enlightened philosopher descending back into the cave to lead the others.

I think the Orphic symbolism is unmistakable. Socrates himself is the guide who descends into the netherworld (the world of ignorance) in order to lead the unenlightened to the light above. The dialogue starts with Socrates descending to Piraeus where they pray to the Thracian Goddess (Orphism was associated with Thrace) and gaze on the celebrations, and ends with the vision of light.

Socrates’ method of guidance is his dialectic which leads to a “turning around of the soul” (periagoge), and “transformation” or “conversion” (metanoia) and, finally, to a vision of reality:

This organ of knowledge [inner eye] must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theater, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being (Rep. 518c)

Do you mean Christian mortification? — Fooloso4

It was a widespread practice in ancient asceticism. It became later associated with Christianity through the process of cultural assimilation, although the fact that it is automatically characterised as 'Christian' is telling.

But you seem to think that these are not shadows but illuminations. I don't think we will be able to reconcile this difference. — Fooloso4

I think you have a determindly secularist reading of Plato. Obviously you will see the way I'm inclined to interepret it as due to my own somewhat spiritual preconceptions. But I try and present intepretations which I think do justice to the source materials, while taking into account the larger influences swirling around the issues.

The 'secular West' can't disown Plato, as he is recognised as one of the founders of the culture. But they can redact out those elements which are at odds with their predominant philosophy of scientific naturalism. That's been ongoing to a long time.

A case in point is the argument against Platonism in mathematics. This shows up in what has been called the project of 'naturalised epistemology'. There's an article on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy about The indispensability argument for mathematics. The background to this is an apparently influential paper by a philosopher of maths, Paul Benacerraf:

Standard readings of mathematical claims entail the existence of mathematical objects. But, our best epistemic theories seem to debar any knowledge of mathematical objects. Thus, the philosopher of mathematics faces a dilemma: either abandon standard readings of mathematical claims or give up our best epistemic theories. Neither option is attractive.

And why do 'our best epistemic theories seem to debar' any such knowledge? It turns out that 'our best epistemic theories' must be thoroughly empirical and naturalist, and so can't accomodate the idea of mathematical intuition:

Some philosophers, called rationalists, claim that we have a special, non-sensory capacity for understanding mathematical truths, a rational insight arising from pure thought. But, the rationalist’s claims appear incompatible with an understanding of human beings as physical creatures whose capacities for learning are exhausted by our physical bodies.

This speaks volumes about what is at stake in these arguments. Because mathematical knowledge seems to transcend our sensory abilities, then it can't be regarded as inherently real. But now we're in a pickle, because our much-vaunted science relies intimately on mathematics! Hence the intellectual convolutions to 'prove' that mathematics can be efficacious even if numbers are not actually real - the so-called 'indispensability argument'.

I know that I don't understand all of the technicalities of Benecareff's arguments, you would have to be a maths grad. But the contours of the argument are clear. The reality of intelligible objects, of which the natural numbers are a type, cannot be admitted without allowing for a real metaphysics, because then you're acknowleding the reality of something that is purely intellectual, yet real. And that is something that Darwinian materialism can't deal with. This conditions so much else about our cultural outlook - and that is my answer to the question raised in the OP.

(Plato) raises the question of the relationship between things and Forms, but does not insist on the precise nature of that relationship. Why? It he had a coherent argument why wouldn't he present it here or elsewhere? He calls the hypothesis of Forms (100a) simple, naive, and perhaps foolish, and later "safe and ignorant". (105 b) — Fooloso4

Maybe that's because he doesn't fully understand them. Maybe he is dimly intuiting something profound about the nature of rational intelligence but hasn't been able to really think through all of the implications. Maybe the dialogues about the forms are examples of grappling with the implications, not the triumphant expression of an enlightened sage (of which maybe Parmenides was one, as Peter Kingsley argues, but there is precious little to go on.)

I am trying to understand what 'the forms' might refer to, in such a way as to allow for the idea that they're real. It's difficult to do because of the inherited naturalism which so pervades the culture we're in, that it deeply conditions our conception of the nature of what's real, so the idea of forms (and the reality of mathematical objects) was rejected with the decline of metaphysics at the advent of the modern period. This has been the subject of criticism by many philosophers, mainly of the idealist persuasion, and that's the perspective I'm wanting to bring to the question.

:up:

Also, I don't think philosophy asks for disruptions and upheavals. It's just the task of the philosopher to question. — Shawn

I hear you, but pretty often, if you keep following questions, you end up in potentially unsettling situations. Ask any competent journalist. And, I guess if you are an atheist skeptic and (hypothetically) you discover idealism is true, there's a massive personal upheaval as your belief systems collapse or change. My gut feeling is that although philosophy does not set out to be disruptive, it is pretty much guaranteed to do so if you take it seriously - at the very least, to use Kant's worn out phrase, you'll awaken from a dogmatic slumber.

Plato's philosophers, after all, were to be trained for the express purpose of serving the people. — Apollodorus

Much how like teachers arise nowadays.

It is so mind boggling how smart Plato was.

My gut feeling is that although philosophy does not set out to be disruptive, it is pretty much guaranteed to do so if you take it seriously - at the very least, to use Kant's worn out phrase, you'll awaken from a dogmatic slumber. — Tom Storm

Why is that true? It seems almost like a sine qua non, no?

They are not objects of the mind in the sense of being products of the mind, but of being known by the mind. They include at the lower level of the divide line mathematical objects and at thehigher level the Forms. But since the Forms are hypotheticals, they are products of the mind. Further they are products of the imagination. The divided line turns out to be not so neatly divided. — Fooloso4

Forms are mathematical objects. Forms are a subset of math. If you mean by forms thing like the Platonic forms. The formalists (as their label suggests) think these are there already before their awareness by men. The inuitionists see them as a human invention. The latter is the more reasonable.